I was wondering why there is no daghesh forte in the imperfect waw consecutive of היה. See Gen. 1:5 for example וַֽיְהִי . BBH explains that the formation of the imperfect waw consecutive should have a daghesh unless, of course, it is a guttural (196-197). I don't think that this rule applies here because of yod from the 3ms imperfect (see וַיֹּ֥אמֶר in Gen. 1:3). Is וַֽיְהִי just irregular or am I missing some rule?

Thank you Ste for this reference—I have bookmarked it for future reference. However, I may not make much use of it. In the past I didn’t purchase it because of my experience with the Gesenius / Kautsch lexicon, in which I found many definitions that don’t fit their contexts and / or sloppy such that they don’t follow the patterns used when studying modern languages.

However, I question if this grammar is the best reference to give to a beginning student. Does it describe Biblical Hebrew, or Tiberian Hebrew with its interpretations of Biblical Hebrew (often wrong)?

Would not a better recommendation be to start reading Tanakh cover to cover? Use an analytical lexicon to give clues to the more unusual forms (though my dictionary has many of them to help beginning students)?

Ryan: I studied a whole two semesters of Hebrew in my sophomore year in college. After that I read Tanakh though cover to cover many times, I lost count. I wore out three copies of Tanakh from reading them, they fell apart. I now read on my computer, which doesn’t wear out.

One of the things I learned from reading Tanakh over and over again, is that much of what I learned in class consisted of what’s jocularly called “first year lies”. These are inaccuracies that were not mendacious, rather based on tradition. Tradition is based on a version of Hebrew that long post dated Biblical use, a version of Hebrew that has a different grammar and many terms have different meanings than they had in Biblical Hebrew. The Gesenius grammar listed above, for example, is based on Tiberian, not Biblical, Hebrew.

You can request a copy of my dictionary (which is far from perfect) by emailing kwrandolph@gmail.com .

S_Walch wrote:I … recommend getting a copy of Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar from somewhere, especially if in your first year of study on Hebrew

I spent some time looking at parts of Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar.

I recommend against getting involved with Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, especially for beginning students:

1) it’s based on Tiberian Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew, and as such actually interferes with learning and understanding Biblical Hebrew

2) based on #1 above, it’s unnecessarily complex and difficult to learn

3) based on #1 and #2 above, its use should be limited to upper level, best graduate level, comparisons and contrasts of how historic understandings of Hebrew differed from Biblical Hebrew

4) therefore, it’s best for beginning students to avoid getting involved with Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar.

The only accurate grammar of Biblical Hebrew I have seen is the one I have written, short as it is, in an appendix to my dictionary.

If one merely wants to learn Biblical Hebrew in order to read God’s Word, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar will interfere with that study. That was my reason for learning Biblical Hebrew. If one is a graduate student of the language looking to get a PhD, then it can be used to contrast historical understanding with the actual use of Biblical Hebrew.